Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

lavabit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 321 posts

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#201

Post by smokeyj »

jasonlotito wrote: post #181
mburns wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. It says so in his next sentence. The 'no, sorry' is him discarding the emotional plea that often justifies invading a person's privacy in the first place ("please, won't somebody think of the children!").

> His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. Except there is no right to engage in total privacy. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy. Maybe his argument is that he thinks people should have a right to total privacy?

Does asking for a site's private SSL key sound like a reasonable search? I realize "reasonable" is entirely subjective, which is why I don't put much faith in out justice system.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#202

Post by dobbsbob »

aianus wrote: post #135
orblivion wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this was circumvented here, right? The guy revoked his cert. That's what revocation is for. I guess the next step is a secret law that makes this illegal?

Or they detain you so you can't revoke it

The intelligence court can if wants dish out secret punishment, so according to the Washington Post if they find you in contempt you will be held in a communications management unit, which is basically max security where they put terrorists. You are forbidden from ever talking to anybody while inside and nobody can know you are there, because it would leak the national security secrets of the specific case so basically the secret police make you vanish off the face of the earth until you cooperate.

How did this become legal

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#203

Post by dllthomas »

Zigurd wrote: post #200
abalone wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's keep this in perspective. The problem here is Lavabit was specifically designed to disallow lawful intercepts of individuals. Targeting individuals is absolutely the right way to go about a lawful intercept. Sucking up all traffic like the NSA has been doing is totally overbroad and invasive. But the whole point of the asymmetric encryption feature of Lavabit was to make it impossible for anyone but the acc…

> But surely we can all agree there exist circumstances under which some lawful intercepts are justified Perhaps, but there are means of communication that are impervious to interception, and that cannot be compromised the way Lavabit might have been. Should such technologies be outlawed?

Impervious?

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#204

Post by jlgreco »

jasonlotito wrote: post #195
polarix wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a perfectly reasonable question, actually. One possible answer is that communicating on the internet requires the use of a physical commons, which one could reasonably argue carries either innate restrictions or restrictions legitimately imposed by the owners of said infrastructure.

No, it's not. He's making an assumption. He's assuming I think privacy should be restricted to select mediums, which is not the point of my comment. It would be the same thing as me asking you or him why you want to assist child rapists or people killing other people? And yes, it might be a bit pedantic, but I'm tired of these childish games on HN.

You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed....

It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. Instead of calling my question childish, you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#205

Post by kordless »

chimeracoder wrote: post #165
kyboren wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do believe this kind of fear is justified. I posted this comment because: 1) I believe my analysis is sound 2) As I have posted previously, I am a US citizen and therefore cannot be denied entry to the US I have already donated, and though my speech (through both keyboard and wallet) might bring additional attention from the alphabet-soup agencies, I believe it's important to speak up rather than give in to…

> I am a US citizen and therefore cannot be denied entry to the US That's what the no-fly list is for. There have been some court cases where they have ruled that forbidding a US citizen to fly on his return trip to the US is stranding/abandonment[0], but... even then, it took a while to get those rulings, and things were pretty messy for the person in the meantime. [0] I'm blanking on the legal term but there is a s…

Yeah. Boats.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#206

Post by kordless »

pessimizer wrote: post #52
scott_karana wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like fearmongering. I can't see any way that helping to fund someone's court case can be considering a crime, even if he were completely in the wrong. I strongly suspect that there are favourable legal precedents, even.

It's not that it's a crime, it's that it puts you on a list. Posting on this site probably puts you on a list.

Maybe that's what they need a $600M AWS cloud. Lists.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#207

Post by harryh »

frenger wrote: post #188
MustBeAShill wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean like how the U.S. Postal service has been recording senders and recipients for decades? It's not a good analogy.

They have? And of the whole world as well?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai...

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#208

Post by rtpg »

kelnos wrote: post #149
abalone wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's keep this in perspective. The problem here is Lavabit was specifically designed to disallow lawful intercepts of individuals. Targeting individuals is absolutely the right way to go about a lawful intercept. Sucking up all traffic like the NSA has been doing is totally overbroad and invasive. But the whole point of the asymmetric encryption feature of Lavabit was to make it impossible for anyone but the acc…

I disagree with the premise. I don't believe that a service should be required by law to provide the possibility for the government to intercept the activity of its users. You can always say "but the child pornographers!" or, "but the terrorists!"... but... no, sorry. I believe that people should have the ability to engage in total privacy. The fact that the US gov't is doing this because of Snowden (a person I admir…

So you don't think law enforcement should be able to do its job?

If we lived in total privacy, and I were to start a ponzi scheme completely online, then I would not be able to be stopped because :

1. My e-mail wouldn't be looked at

2. My bank accounts couldn't be looked at

Almost all evidence gathering during criminal investigation involves a loss of privacy at one point

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#209

Post by jasonlotito »

smokeyj wrote: post #201
jasonlotito wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His argument is clearly that people have a right to privacy. Except there is no right to engage in total privacy. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy. Maybe his argument is that he thinks people should have a right to total privacy?

Does asking for a site's private SSL key sound like a reasonable search? I realize "reasonable" is entirely subjective, which is why I don't put much faith in out justice system.

> Does asking for a site's private SSL key sound like a reasonable search?

Considering that was far from the first thing they asked for, no. Were their goals reasonable? Yes. Was Levison trying to cooperate? No.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#210

Post by rtpg »

sbarre wrote: post #189
abalone wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what about the children? Serious question. I say it's an incomplete argument because there is no mention of how we should go about prosecuting child pornographers and terrorists, rescuing missing persons when phone/email records are our only clue, and so on. There's just "no, sorry", the right to privacy trumps these things under all possible circumstances. The question remains.. why? Why is a world with ideall…

Do you believe that we should all give up our right to privacy just in case it allows us to save a few people here and there? I know that makes me sound like a dick at first glance, but do you really believe that if you answer "yes" to the question above, we are guaranteed that this system will never be abused? I think the answer to that has already been provided in light of recent events.

You act as if it's a binary thing. It's not all or no privacy. It's always been some privacy , and you have more or less depending on circumstances.

Nothing is guaranteed to be abused, but when checks and balances works, things get harder.

Try not to forget that before the FISA Court there was no court and the president did what he wanted in that domain. Things are getting better (even if at a glacial pace).

Post reply on HN